2000 PLP 62 (YLR)

Aftab Ahmad Khan for the State. The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in a case vide F.I.R. No.94 dated 29-5-1999 under section 324, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Secretariat, Islamabad.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 29-5-1999 at 1-30 a.m. while the complainant Ulfat Rasool Waraich along with his friends was sitting in the lawn of the hostel, he was informed that Ishfaq Sadiq petitioner along with a girl (whose name later on was disclosed as Salma Khurshid) was present in Room No.49/4. The matter was brought into the notice of Security Staff, upon which Mustaq Ali, Security Officer and Muhammad Shafi and other security personnel came and knocked at the door of Room No.49/4. Upon this the door was opened by Ishfaq Sadiq duly armed with a .30 bore pistol and fired at Liaqat Baloch hitting him on the left thigh. Consequently, he fell down. In the meanwhile, Ishfaq Sadiq and Mst. Salma Khurshid tried to slip away, upon which complainant tried to lay his hand upon them. Thereupon accused/petitioner fired two shots out of which one hit on his right thumb. As the students, became furious, so to save their lives, both the accused/petitioner and Mst. Salina Khurshid were taken to T.V. Room. Jahanzaib also received injury in this scuffle. Later on Liaqat Baloch and Jahanzaib were sent to the hospital for treatment.

3. The petitioner applied for bail which relief was declined to him vide order, dated 2-6-1999 of the trial Court. He was also declined the same relief by the learned Sessions Judge vide order, dated 11-6-1999. Hence the instant petition.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Mst. Salina Khurshid was his wife and the complainant and others tried to outrage her modesty, that the alleged injury on the person of Liaqat Baloch is on non-vital part of the body, that as per contents of the F.I.R., Ulfat Rasool complainant received a fire-arm injury on his right thumb but this fact stands belied by medical certificate which shows that he received an injury with blunt weapon, that offence under section 324, P.P.C., is not made out from the contents of the F.I.R., and at the most case falls under section 337 A(iii), P.P.C., that even the factum of recovery of pistol on 30-5-1999 makes the recovery highly doubtful, that even the locale of injury does not prove that the petitioner had the intention to kill the injured and that all these facts make the case of the petitioner open for further inquiry. Conversely, bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. His contention is that the petitioner has been specifically named in the F.I.R. and a specific role of firing has been attributed to him and the contention of the complainant stands corroborated from the factum of recovery of pistol form the present petitioner.

6. In the instant case incident stands admitted by the petitioner. However, his contention is that as the complainant and others had tried to outrage the modesty of his wife, so he had to resort to firing. There is no force in this stand of accused/petitioner, as had the door of Room No.49/4 been knocked at by the complainant and others, there could be some force in his contention. As per contents of F.I.R., the door was knocked at by Security Personnel and not by the complainant or his other colleagues. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner was armed with pistol, when he opened the door and immediately fired at Liaqat Baloch. The mere fact that being a student and residing in a hostel petitioner was keeping a pistol and resorted to reckless firing simultaneously opening the door tells upon his bona fide. The accumulative effect of all these facts is that petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought by him. Resultantly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Q.M.H./I-1116/L Bail refused.